The Canon EOS R3 will be 24mp, confirmed by EXIF data

Canon's research doesn't necessarily equate to what "most of us want"; a lot of folks SETTLE with what Canon options they have. Just because people are buying Canon cameras certainly doesn't mean those cameras are what they wanted. Sometimes good enough is...good enough.
If you suggest the competition has "better" cameras then why would people "settle" for inferior cameras?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I always chuckle when I see this assertion. Big companies don't work this way. The R3 has likely been in the works for YEARS, as has the R1. They surveyed the pros who work in this space to find out what they wanted. Considering Sony is still a minor player in this space (professional sports), I doubt that the A1 was any consideration at all. Also, anyone who thinks the A9 was a surprise has clearly never worked at a multi-national. They all know what the other one us up to long before the products make it to market. Sure, small features can change, but the overall product is well known. Canon has their targets for each product and build cameras/lenses for each. Besides, if anything was envisioned at Canon as being a competitor for the A1, it was likely the R5. The R5 can do almost everything the A1 can do for $2500 less. That is how Canon has always operated. They market cameras at similar performance levels using different price points. If anyone was surprised, it was likely Sony with the R5 (though I'm sure they weren't). I would expect a dev announcement on the R1 to come before the end of this year if not with the R3.
Well said. I’m no pro sports photographer, but I can only imagine the hassle of dealing with high megapixel photos in bulk. I get sulky at my computer response to a measly 300 r5 photos, let alone 1,000s of them day after day.

As to competitor understanding, I work for a multinational too (not in products though) and we have a good understanding of what our competitors will offer and how it will play for us. They all know what the others are up to and how they will respond and try to maintain or grow margin. For canon I think it’s all lure with good bodies that are fit for purpose for the target market ( in this case sports pros / wildlife mainly) and make a killing on those tasty rf lenses.
 
Upvote 0
I'm amused to think that, not so long ago, "R3" was one of the names being used on these forums to mean Canon's much-anticipated high megapixel version of the R5.

The irony of it!

And if, by some strange quirk, the R3 does indeed turn out to be that high-megapixel "R3" (with a 24 Mpx resolution "trick") what a wondrous twist that would be. A real roller-coaster!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

tron

CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,222
1,616
Well said. I’m no pro sports photographer, but I can only imagine the hassle of dealing with high megapixel photos in bulk. I get sulky at my computer response to a measly 300 r5 photos, let alone 1,000s of them day after day.

As to competitor understanding, I work for a multinational too (not in products though) and we have a good understanding of what our competitors will offer and how it will play for us. They all know what the others are up to and how they will respond and try to maintain or grow margin. For canon I think it’s all lure with good bodies that are fit for purpose for the target market ( in this case sports pros / wildlife mainly) and make a killing on those tasty rf lenses.
I mainly shoot with D850 and R5 and my laptop behaves decently. No issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I cry crocodile tears for anyone who has to settle... By choosing between an R5 or R3 :)
Isn't that the very position Jeff Cable put himself into the other day at the Olympics, when visiting the equestrian jumping event:


So, given that he took a 1DXiii, 2 x R5 and an R3 body to the Olympics and the reference to the 100-500mm lens rules out the use of the 1DXiii, which did he choose: an R5 or the R3?
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
Will the R3 also restrict the frame rate if a third party lens is attached? I am quite shocked that Sony does that. That is clearly anticompetitive behaviour. I understand that autofocus does not work as smooth with a third party lens, but it could still do the maximum fps, even if the focus lags behind. Sony even resticts FPS in situations were you use wide open lens and the focus does not change at all. So the only reason seems to be forcing people to buy expensive Sony glass. If Canon does the same, the camera should not be marketed with 30 fps.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 20, 2015
428
372
Well said. I’m no pro sports photographer, but I can only imagine the hassle of dealing with high megapixel photos in bulk. I get sulky at my computer response to a measly 300 r5 photos, let alone 1,000s of them day after day.

My technique is to extract the JPEG thumbnail from the raw whilst copying over the RAW. Then you just have to flick through JPEGs until you find the RAW that you want to process.

So whether the RAW is 16 or 24 or 45 MP is irrelevant at the screening stage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,098
12,860
Will the R3 also restrict the frame rate if a third party lens is attached? I am quite shocked that Sony does that. That is clearly anticompetitive behaviour. I understand that autofocus does not work as smooth with a third party lens, but it could still do the maximum fps, even if the focus lags behind. Sony even resticts FPS in situations were you use wide open lens and the focus does not change at all. So the only reason seems to be forcing people to buy expensive Sony glass. If Canon does the same, the camera should not be marketed with 30 fps.
Everything has caveats. They are indicated by a footnote somewhere in the spec or marketing materials. My 1D X shoots 12 fps* (*with a shutter speed of 1/1000 s or faster, an aperture setting not more than 4 stops narrower than the lens’ maximum aperture, and ISO 12,800 or lower). It’s still a 12 fps camera.

Guess what? Your car’s mileage will be lower than the manufacturer’s estimate, you’ll pay more in electricity costs for your refrigerator than the manufacture estimated, and even though your doctor may have said you’re healthy you could still die this year. Into each life a little rain must fall, learn to deal with it.

More importantly, you’re talking about 3rd party lens compatibility – why should Canon be under any obligation to ensure that?
 
Upvote 0

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
484
603
Isn't that the very position Jeff Cable put himself into the other day at the Olympics, when visiting the equestrian jumping event:



So, given that he took a 1DXiii, 2 x R5 and an R3 body to the Olympics and the reference to the 100-500mm lens rules out the use of the 1DXiii, which did he choose: an R5 or the R3?
The EXIF data shows that he brought the R3 for that event.
I stopped checking every image a few days ago, but until then he hadn't posted a single image from the 1DXiii.
The shots of his room and facilities and stuff are from an iPhone. Olympic sporting shots posted are about 90% R3 and 10% R5, with some events being 100% R3.
Seems pretty promising for the R3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Aug 21, 2018
144
15
I am going to guess $5999 and $7499
What does the 1Dx Mk III cost? I would guess that when it comes the R1 will around what the 1Dx MkIII plus a little extra so my guess is the R3 will be between R1 to come and R5 in cost. It would cost somewhere between $3900 & $6500 US so maybe between around $4500-5400US.
 
Upvote 0

Bahrd

Red herrings...
Jun 30, 2013
252
186
Upvote 0

Toglife_Anthony

Hit the G.A.S. & pump the brakes at the same time!
Apr 2, 2020
64
80
If you suggest the competition has "better" cameras then why would people "settle" for inferior cameras?
Is this a serious question? Because number one I didn't suggest anything, I made a statement that didn't need to be read into. Number two, just because a camera doesn't tick all the boxes doesn't make it inferior. And number three, someone invested in a brand and ecosystem isn't going to sell all their gear and jump ship solely because a competitor's camera has some features their brand camera doesn't. Again I ask, was this a serious question?! ;-)
 
Upvote 0
Is this a serious question? Because number one I didn't suggest anything, I made a statement that didn't need to be read into. Number two, just because a camera doesn't tick all the boxes doesn't make it inferior. And number three, someone invested in a brand and ecosystem isn't going to sell all their gear and jump ship solely because a competitor's camera has some features their brand camera doesn't. Again I ask, was this a serious question?! ;-)
Yes it is a serious question. You said lots folks "settle" for Canon. You also said they are buying cameras they don't necessarily want. These are your words not mine. Maybe you didn't mean it that way. Who knows?
 
Upvote 0
My technique is to extract the JPEG thumbnail from the raw whilst copying over the RAW. Then you just have to flick through JPEGs until you find the RAW that you want to process.

So whether the RAW is 16 or 24 or 45 MP is irrelevant at the screening stage.
That sounds interesting, is that an import setting in Lightroom or do you shout raw + low res jpeg?
 
Upvote 0